I just wanted to comment on the use of italics to emphasis that Stanley Kurtz is conservative, followed by a quote by the NYT, with no corresponding liberal to identify it.
On this boards NYT's liberalism has been discussed quite a bit (especially with respect to politics-didn't Ann bring it up recently?), whereas I don't know how many people know who Kurtz is. I know I didn't before I took an interest in politics, which is why I thought it important to bring up.
I have listened to Mr. Kurtz, and he does not resort to insinuations. He presents the facts, as he found them documented in the papers, notes, board meeting minutes, etc. of the CAC. Frankly, I have a great deal more confidence in this documented evidence than I do in the words of the "people in a position to know" - who also happen to be people who have a vested interest in presenting a sanitized rendition of the story.
I read the Kurtz articles myself some time ago and came, not surprisingly, to the opposite conclusion. My interpretation was that Kurtz's framing of the activities of CAC leads to insinuations of wrongdoing (I mean the title of his Sept. 23 WSJ article was: "Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism on Schools").
But the most compelling evidence to me is actually, not what CAC founders have said, but the fact that so many different people where involved in the project, including Republicans, Democrats, venture capitalists and educators. Even if Ayers was part part of an advisory group, the projects that were approved, were approved
by a board, not him alone. And he was not the sole advisor either. Because of this, I'm not sure that Ayer's more radical personal beliefs and links to the Bolivarian Revolution philosophies, etc. carry that much importance when thinking about CAC and by extension Obama himself and what he would implement as president.
Further, if we're following that logic to raise questions about Obama, it's only fair that the same logic would be used when evaluating the people McCain had similarly tenous associations with. And ultimately, there is so much nebulousness and open-endedness with these statements (usually people fall along partisan lines), that I personally don't consider them productive. A person's milleage obviously varies.
I had a completely opposite paradigm shift, I should say. But in any case, I don't think the liberal or conservative side of any story is "truth," which is why I try to get both sides, crosscheck, etc. I subscribe to a theory of degree not absolutes. Subjective judgements always creep in when assigning value to one thing or another; there's no escaping that ever, but the attempt to use the same standard when judging is a good exercise.
alcyone
